Congressional Elections DA - Michigan 2024 BDKLS

Congressional Elections DA
Notes
This disadvantage argues that Democrats will win the Senate or House and that will prevent Trump from implementing his agenda, with a variety of impacts. Obviously “Harris wins” really throws a wrench into this argument, but we did not have time to cut the hypothetical “Harris agenda good” version. Nor to resolve some of the other complications caused by the Biden dropout. There are a variety of link/internal links, but the best and most well-developed as of now is the big tech backlash argument.
Thanks to Aanya S, Aidan O, Akhil, Alex, Emma, Kristin, Luke, Sahil, Sean, Tara, Vikrant and Zarar for completing this file. They did well on what was already a tough assignment, that was dramatically altered when Biden dropped from the race.
1NC
Democrats winning every key Senate race.
Harrison 7/19 [Thomas F. Harrison; political writer; citing Shiro Kuriwaki; Yale Professor; 7-19-2024; Many Trump voters back Senate Democrats, making the chamber a toss-up in the fall; No Publication; https://www.courthousenews.com/many-trump-voters-back-senate-democrats-making-the-chamber-a-toss-up-in-the-fall/; 7-20-2024; AO]
On paper, winning back the Senate should be a cakewalk for the GOP this year: The party is defending only 11 relatively safe seats while the Democrats have to defend 23 seats, many of them in red or purple states, at a time when their presidential standard-bearer is struggling.
And yet, thanks to ticket-splitters, Democratic Senate candidates are ahead in almost all of their races — sometimes polling dramatically better than President Joe Biden.
“It’s important to remember that not all Trump voters are alike,” Macdonald said. “Some of them vote for Trump enthusiastically while wearing a hat, but others vote reluctantly while holding their nose.”
Back in the 1970s, it wasn’t unusual for 25% or more of voters to split their tickets, according to Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. In both the 1972 and 1984 elections, Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate even though Republicans won the presidency in a 49-state landslide. As late as 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton easily won reelection while Republicans added two Senate seats.
In fact, from 1968 to 2000, at least 10 states in every election backed presidential and Senate candidates of different parties. But this phenomenon didn’t happen anywhere in 2016, suggesting a dramatic hardening of partisanship. In 2020 it happened in only one state: Maine, which voted for Biden but gave a fifth Senate term to Susan Collins — one of the country’s most liberal Republicans.
If the current polls are to be believed, though, 2024 could once again see a raft of states opt for strange bedfellows.
Nowhere is the difference starker than in Montana, where polls show Democratic Senator Jon Tester with a lead of between 2 and 9 points even though Biden is losing the state by 21, according to RealClearPolitics.
In Ohio, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is up by 5 points, even though Biden is down by 10.
And the pattern is repeating in other swing states. In Arizona and Nevada, the averages show Democratic Senate candidates Ruben Gallego and Jacky Rosen ahead by 5 points, while Biden trails in both states by 3 or more. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey leads his Senate race by 5 points while Biden trails by 3 points. In Wisconsin, Biden and Trump are tied, but incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin is leading Republican businessman Eric Hovde by 8 points.
This is a dramatic contrast to 2020, when only 3% of voters split their ticket between presidential and congressional candidates, according to Shiro Kuriwaki, a Yale University professor who wrote his dissertation on ticket-splitting. “That’s the lowest number since surveys began in the 1950s,” he said.
In the past, political scientists have had two theories to explain ticket-splitting, according to Macdonald. One is that voters want divided government in order to balance extreme tendencies. In 1996, for instance, some Republican congressional candidates explicitly made the argument that Clinton would likely be reelected and a Republican Congress was needed to keep him in check.
Under this theory, large numbers of voters want to fire Biden this year, but they are wary of Trump’s potential extremism and want a Democratic Congress as an insurance policy to rein him in.
Big tech backlashes to the plan.
Barnett 21 [Jonathan M. Barnett; Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law at the Gould School of Law, University of Southern California; 2021; Why Big Tech Likes Weak IP; Cato Institute; https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2021/why-big-tech-likes-weak-ip; 7-25-2024; AO]
Lobbying behavior/ To test this hypothesis, I reviewed and gathered evidence on the lobbying behavior of various technology-intensive industries. Historical examples show that large, integrated firms resisted strong patent protection in the late 19th-century railroad industry, as did large, integrated firms like IBM in the computing industry of the 1960s and 1970s. Both industries have in common the fact that incumbents offered a bundled package of intangible and tangible assets and therefore resisted patent protection that facilitated entry by suppliers of discrete components of that package. More recent evidence shows that some of the largest technology firms were among the most vigorous supporters of the America Invents Act. Enacted in 2011, that statute substantially expanded opportunities for third parties to contest the validity of patents, principally through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It is likely not accidental that these same firms have been among the most active petitioners at the PTAB seeking to invalidate issued patents.
That unleashes an onslaught against Dems.
McKinnon et al 22
[(John, covered tech policy for the Wall Street Journal and has written extensively about the political backlash against big tech and the antitrust investigations into the companies.) “Big Tech Has Spent $36 million on Ads to Torpedo Antitrust Bill.”, WSJ, 6-9-22, https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tech-has-spent-36-million-on-ads-to-torpedo-antitrust-bill-11654767000]//LR
WASHINGTON—Advocacy groups bankrolled by big technology companies have poured at least $36.4 million into TV and internet ads opposing antitrust legislation that would bar dominant tech platforms from favoring their own products and services, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. By comparison, groups supporting the antitrust legislation have spent about $193,000, according to a Journal analysis of data collected by AdImpact, an ad-tracking service. Much of the tech industry spending—$13.7 million, or almost 40%—has come since May 1, ahead of a possible floor vote this summer on the bill, which has bipartisan support. The spending marks one of the biggest ad campaigns by the powerful tech industry in recent years and reflects its fear of the disruptive potential of tougher antitrust laws. “This is without question one of the most significant campaigns the association has embarked on in recent years, because it’s one of the most radical policy proposals to regulate a leading sector of the U.S. economy,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which has spent more than $23 million, the most of any group. CCIA didn’t disclose which companies provided funding for its ad campaign, saying only that “the association is funding the campaign.” CCIA lists Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook among its members. CCIA’s ads have included mentions of Amazon as well as Google and “your phone.” The bill targets dominant tech platforms, including Amazon’s e-commerce site, Google’s search engine, Apple’s App Store and Facebook. Those companies have been working for months to stop or alter the bill, deploying teams of lobbyists and top executives to Washington. The $36.4 million spent by groups opposing the legislation dates back to Jan. 1, 2021. Google’s voluntary disclosure of its memberships for 2021 includes CCIA. Amazon also disclosed that it made payments of $10,000 or more to CCIA in 2021. Many of the ads are running in lawmakers’ home states and districts. They aim to convince voters that easing antitrust standards would contribute to inflation, weaken America’s hand versus China or hurt consumers and small businesses by disrupting popular online services such as Amazon Prime or Google Maps. Sponsors led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) held a press conference on Wednesday to push back on the campaign, saying it is distorting the bill’s impacts. “We’re confronted with these big tech companies spending tens of millions of dollars on ads and also on front groups to spread falsehoods about our bill,” Mr. Grassley said. “Obviously they want to protect the status quo, which allows them to expand their influence.” Ms. Klobuchar insisted the bill has the necessary votes to succeed on the Senate floor. “We have momentum despite all the money being spent against us,” she said. The bill passed a Senate committee earlier this year on a bipartisan basis, although some supporters said at the time that they wanted changes. It “is specifically designed to target a small number of specific companies, most of which are headquartered in my home state,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said at the time. Supporters, including some smaller technology companies, contend the platforms’ dominant position gives them unchecked power to influence the fate of other businesses. They say restricting the platforms’ conduct would carry significant benefits. The bill was endorsed by the Biden administration’s Justice Department. Amazon, Google and Apple say the legislation would make it harder to offer popular services, and that it is fair for e-marketplaces, search engines and app stores to profit off their own innovations. Meta Platforms hasn’t taken a public position on the Senate legislation, and a spokesman declined to comment. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) hasn’t publicly committed to holding a vote on the bill. However, Mr. Schumer recently told Ms. Klobuchar and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) that he intends to bring it up for a vote on the Senate floor early this summer, a Democratic aide familiar with the conversation said. The ad-campaign spending has largely been divided among industry trade groups such as CCIA and the Consumer Technology Association, as well as conservative-leaning groups such as Taxpayers Protection Alliance and NetChoice. “Washington politicians have a law that could break Prime’s guaranteed two-day free delivery and threaten our fragile economic recovery,” said one ad by CCIA, referring to Amazon’s fee-based membership program. “Tell your senators, don’t break our Prime.” CCIA touts research suggesting that its ad campaign already has cut into public support for the antitrust crackdown. Other industry-backed ads focus on what opponents say would be the bill’s impact on small businesses and national security. “The left’s radical liberal bill would take away the digital tools small businesses rely on, empower China to beat America in the race for new technologies, and increase the risk of cyberattacks. Why would Senate conservatives support this dangerous bill?” says an ad from Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Tech companies are hoping to cement opposition to the bill among Republicans, who generally oppose toughening of antitrust laws but have often complained that major tech platforms censor conservative voices. “Conservative politicians and groups backing this legislation due to understandable grievances with certain tech companies are making an incalculable error,” said Patrick Hedger, executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. It has run most of its $7.4 million total advertising in the last six weeks, the Journal’s analysis showed. One state that industry allies have targeted is Texas, according to a person familiar with the matter. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) “is still reviewing the bill, because he continues to be concerned about anticompetitive conduct by some big tech companies towards American consumers, and in many instances conservatives,” a Cruz spokesman said. The state’s other senator, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, opposes the legislation, citing the potential national security consequences. “The last thing we should be doing is weakening America’s ability to compete in a global economy,” he said at a hearing earlier this year. The bill’s supporters say the proposals would boost economic competitiveness without preventing platforms from offering popular services. The ads are also running in states where incumbent Senate Democrats are facing re-election fights, such as New Hampshire, home to Sen. Maggie Hassan, who hasn’t taken a public position on the legislation. A spokesperson said Ms. Hassan is reviewing the legislation and “has a strong record of standing up to some of the worst practices of Big Tech.” Tech companies “know that if the bills came to the floor for a vote, they would pass, and so big tech lobby groups are scrambling to try to prevent that from happening,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, one of the groups that has run ads supporting the legislation. The group’s funding comes in part from the Economic Security Project, an entity backed by Chris Hughes, the billionaire former Facebook executive.
Senate control means Trump causes climate catastrophe by 2030.
Joselow ’24 [Maxine Joselow, Reporter and staff writer for The Washington Post, July 18 2024, “How a Republican election sweep could transform U.S. climate policy”, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/07/18/republican-election-sweep-climate-policy/] // tara
Going after green energy
One of the most controversial proposals in Project 2025 is a recommendation to repeal Biden’s signature 2022 climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. The law has poured billions of dollars into boosting green technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles, with most of the new investments in Republican-led states and congressional districts.
To fully repeal the tax credits for these green technologies, Trump would need Republican lawmakers to pass new legislation. But even without Congress, Trump could direct the Treasury Department to significantly limit which companies could claim the credits.
The subsidy for electric vehicles would probably be a top target. Trump has repeatedly railed against EVs, falsely claiming they don’t work. His vice-presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), introduced a bill last year to scrap the EV credit and replace it with an incentive for American-made vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel.
It remains unclear, however, whether Silicon Valley tech moguls could soften Trump’s stance on EVs. Vance has ties to tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who has invested in a start-up that designed an electric sports car, while Tesla CEO Elon Musk has endorsed Trump and plans to steer roughly $45 million a month to a pro-Trump super PAC, the Wall Street Journal reported.
“Musk could weigh in, but at the end of the day, I have a really hard time thinking that Trump and his administration would change their views on this,” said a former Trump administration energy official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly.
Another former Trump official, Alex Herrgott, said many green-energy projects still received federal permits during the Trump administration, and because of market forces, their costs would continue to fall in a second Trump term.
“There is no doubt that a second Trump administration would pick up where it left off — whether it was conventional energy, oil and gas pipelines, or the market-dictated acceleration of the renewable energy transition,” said Herrgott, who served as executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council under Trump and now leads the nonprofit Permitting Institute.
It is difficult to predict how these and other decisions could affect the level of carbon emissions in Earth’s atmosphere, the main driver of global warming. But a recent analysis by Carbon Brief, a United Kingdom-based climate policy and science publication, found that a Trump win in November could cause an additional 4 billion metric tons of carbon emissions by 2030 — equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan.
“A Republican sweep in November’s election would avoid congressional roadblocks to Trump rolling back all of Biden’s climate legacy,” Simon Evans, deputy editor and senior policy editor at Carbon Brief, said in an email. “Under those conditions, Trump could push the U.S. towards the extra 4 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2030 that we modeled — and potentially beyond.”
Warming causes extinction---feedback loops and tipping points make it rapid and catastrophic.
Luke Kemp ’22 [August 1; Research Affiliate at the Center for Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, Ph.D; Chi Xu; Joanna Depledge; Timothy Lenton; “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios,” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119]
Although bad-to-worst case scenarios remain underexplored in the scientific literature, statements labeling climate change as catastrophic are not uncommon. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called climate change an “existential threat.” Academic studies have warned that warming above 5 °C is likely to be “beyond catastrophic” (50), and above 6 °C constitutes “an indisputable global catastrophe” (9).
Current discussions over climate catastrophe are undermined by unclear terminology. The term “catastrophic climate change” has not been conclusively defined. An existential risk is usually defined as a risk that cause an enduring and significant loss of long-term human potential (51, 52). This existing definition is deeply ambiguous and requires societal discussion and specification of long-term human values (52). While a democratic exploration of values is welcome, it is not required to understand pathways to human catastrophe or extinction (52). For now, the existing definition is not a solid foundation for a scientific inquiry.
We offer clarified working definitions of such terms in Table 1. This is an initial step toward creating a lexicon for global calamity. Some of the terms, such as what constitutes a “plausible” risk or a “significant contributor,” are necessarily ambiguous. Others, such as thresholding at 10% or 25% of global population, are partly arbitrary (10% is intended as a marker for a precedented loss, and 25% is intended as an unprecedented decrease; see SI Appendix for further discussion). Further research is needed to sharpen these definitions. The thresholds for global catastrophic and decimation risks are intended as general heuristics and not concrete numerical boundaries. Other factors such as morbidity, and cultural and economic loss, need to be considered.
We define risk as the probability that exposure to climate change impacts and responses will result in adverse consequences for human or ecological systems. For the Climate Endgame agenda, we are particularly interested in catastrophic consequences. Any risk is composed of four determinants: hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and response (3).
We have set global warming of 3 °C or more by the end of the century as a marker for extreme climate change. This threshold is chosen for four reasons: Such a temperature rise well exceeds internationally agreed targets, all the IPCC “reasons for concern” in climate impacts are either “high” or “very high” risk between 2 °C and 3 °C, there are substantially heightened risks of self-amplifying changes that would make

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.